Obama’s Choices for Veep Are Far Better Than McCain’s Are

By Stuart Rothenberg

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain hasn’t had a bad couple of weeks. First, the presumptive White House nominee turns the conventional wisdom on its head and outpoints Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) on the Democratic hopeful’s trip to Europe. Instead of Obama using his photo opportunities with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicholas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel to convince American voters that he’s ready to run this country, his trip nets him surprisingly little beyond criticism about his self-image.

And then, a McCain TV spot dictates the terms of the political discussion, drawing Obama into a messy confrontation and successfully driving home an important point about Obama’s substance and readiness for the White House. Sure, most Beltway insiders have bashed the ad, but, given the success of the conventional wisdom so far, that’s probably reason enough to figure that McCain has hit the right message.

But the next big decision that each candidate has to make — the veep — is likely to benefit Obama, not McCain, at least if the names most widely circulated as on the “short list” of potential running mates are correct.

Each of the three Democrats mentioned most often — Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) and Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.) — has very real assets. Any of them would be a good pick for Obama.

Biden would bring maturity and experience. The Delaware Democrat performed well during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, and his expertise on foreign policy issues, and particularly his generally thoughtful approach to Iraq, would be an asset.

Does Biden tend to be long-winded? Sure. Would he be an asset in adding electoral votes to the Democratic ticket? No. Would he make a Democratic ticket made up of two Senators? Obviously. But so what? None of those things matter nearly as much as the assets that he’d bring to the ticket and, yes, the country.

Bayh has served two terms as governor and is in his second Senate term. He comes from what has been a “red state” in presidential elections, and his moderate record as governor earned him praise even from Republicans. Cautious and reliable, Bayh is a team player who could be counted on not to say the wrong thing. He was a vocal supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) during the primaries and picking him could also help unite the party.

Kaine is the purest play for underscoring Obama’s “change” message, since he would bring a non-Washington dimension that neither Biden nor Bayh would bring. And, of course, he comes from a Southern state that until recently was widely regarded as a Republican bastion and that could end up picking the next president.

Of the three officeholders mentioned for the second spot, however, Kaine has the least experience, which includes service on the Richmond City Council, including two terms as the city’s mayor, a single term as lieutenant governor and his current service as governor. Kaine, in short, doesn’t address any Obama experience deficiency.

The Republicans widely regarded as the most likely to be picked by McCain — former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty — bring much less to the table than do the three Democrats.

Pawlenty, 47, is a personable two-term governor who barely won re-election two years ago. An early McCain supporter, he is conservative enough to make the GOP base happy. But he likely wouldn’t bring Minnesota over into the Republican electoral vote column, and he certainly wouldn’t change the dynamic of the presidential race.

That leaves Romney, who has received more mention than any other Republican recently as McCain’s likely choice, the Arizona Republican’s obvious contempt for Romney during this year’s GOP primaries notwithstanding.

A former governor who is widely seen as comfortable discussing economic issues and who has survived extensive media scrutiny, Romney passes the political “smell test” on stature and on the ability to step into the nation’s top job if need be.

But like Pawlenty, Romney doesn’t dramatically enhance the appeal of the GOP ticket or change the election map. And some of the reasons given for Romney’s alleged appeal border on the absurd.

A number of observers have suggested that Romney could help McCain in Michigan, a potentially crucial state for the Republicans in November. The logic here, I suppose, is that Romney’s father, George Romney, was governor of the state, and Mitt’s ties there could help deliver the Wolverine State to the McCain column.

The last election that George Romney won in Michigan was in 1966 — 42 years ago. Given that only 12.5 percent of Michigan’s population was age 65 or older in 2006, according to a U.S. Census Bureau estimate, relatively few Michigan voters still alive could have voted for George Romney.

And if that doesn’t convince you that the Romney name isn’t a huge asset now and would bring very much political value to the Republican ticket in the state, consider that George Romney’s wife, Lenore, ran for Senate in Michigan in 1970, while her husband’s term as governor was expiring, and she drew less than 33 percent of the vote against Sen. Phil Hart (D).

It may well be that McCain doesn’t need a dramatic pick that changes the race’s landscape. After all, if Obama fails to close the deal with voters, the election could fall in McCain’s lap. Still, Democrats have to be upbeat that their party’s vice president choice could help cement Obama’s narrow advantage in the race.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on August 4, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Wal-Mart Sends Mixed Political Signals

By Nathan L. Gonzales

If indeed Wal-Mart is mobilizing its employees to vote against Democrats, it’s sending a mixed message with its political action committee donations.

Wal-Mart is on pace to give more money to House Democrats this cycle than House Republicans for the first time ever. And as Wal-Mart’s contributions reach further and deeper into the Democratic Caucus, it’s becoming more difficult for the company’s critics to demonize the corporate giant.

Through June 30, 54 percent of contributions to House candidates delivered by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. PAC for Responsible Government this cycle have gone to Democrats. Last cycle, Wal-Mart contributed 67 percent of its House candidate money to Republicans. And in 2004, Republicans received 80 percent of the contributions.

“Wal-Mart has been behaving like a lot of companies since Democrats gained the majorities,” Center for Responsive Politics Communications Director Massie Ritsch said.

But Wal-Mart isn’t just another company; it’s America’s largest corporation.

Wal-Mart’s PAC was moderately active during the 1998 and 2000 election cycles — dishing out $894,000 over four years — but ramped up its political giving in 2002, according to the Center for Responsive Politics Web site. The corporation gave $1.4 million that cycle, and boosted its contributions to more than $2.7 million in both the 2004 and 2006 cycles.

In an age where taking money is synonymous with doing someone’s bidding, more and more Democrats, including party leadership, are cashing Wal-Mart’s PAC checks. Apparently Wal-Mart is not the devil it once was.

Through June, Wal-Mart’s PAC had contributed to 86 House Democrats this cycle, amounting to just more than one-third of the Caucus. That’s more than the 77 House Democrats Wal-Mart supported in 2006 and the 62 that received PAC money in 2004.

Since 2004, Wal-Mart has given $27,500 to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.), $22,500 to House Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.), $12,000 to Chief Deputy Whip Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), and $20,500 to House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (N.Y.).

If Friday’s story in the Wall Street Journal — which claimed that Wal-Mart human resources managers were warning employees that an Obama White House would lead to unionization and ultimately hurt them and the company — gains traction, then it could impact how future Wal-Mart political contributions are received.

“Democrats who have received Wal-Mart money should strongly consider giving it back,” Change to Win Executive Director Chris Chafe said. “Because at its work site, Wal-Mart is telling its employees to vote against Democrats and working families and that’s not something the Democratic Party should be affiliated with.”

“We aren’t done yet,” Wal-Mart Regional Media Director E.R. Anderson explained. “Decisions are still being made as we seek to partner with Members and candidates who are interested in solutions on health care, economic opportunity and the environment.”

Ironically, many of those Members also oppose the company on some important legislation, specifically the Employee Free Choice Act.

“EFCA is a really bad bill,” Anderson said. “But there are so many important issues. We can’t limit our outreach or relationship building.”

If Wal-Mart maintains its giving pace from the past two cycles, it still has approximately $800,000 to dole out, but the contributions would have to be overwhelmingly Republican to bring the PAC back to its traditional pattern.

Fifty-two percent of Wal-Mart’s total candidate giving this cycle has gone to Republican candidates, because the Senate giving is still heavily Republican. It’s still a marked change from 2006, when it was 68 percent Republican and 2004 and 2002 when Republicans received 78 percent of Wal-Mart’s candidate contributions.

“The contributions reflect Wal-Mart scrambling to keep up with the political reality of the day,” said Meghan Scott, a spokeswoman for a group called Wake Up Wal-Mart. Backed by the United Food and Commercial Workers, Wake Up Wal-Mart is one of two high-profile groups organized in 2005 to force Wal-Mart to change its business practices.

Through a well-orchestrated public relations campaign and political partnerships, Wal-Mart is trying to blur the partisan lines.

In recent months, Wal-Mart has touted its $4 price tag for certain prescription drugs and efforts to become more environmentally friendly (including becoming the largest seller of more efficient light bulbs). The company also unveiled a new, softer logo earlier this summer, after 16 years of the old one.

In February 2007, Wal-Mart Chief Executive Officer H. Lee Scott Jr. and Service Employees International Union President Andrew Stern jointly called for universal health care coverage by 2012. Even though they disagree on the details, the moment was symbolic.

“As the company makes changes, it becomes harder to be critical,” Wal-Mart Watch Executive Director David Nassar told the New York Times in June. “Because our critique has to become more nuanced.”

During the Democratic presidential primary, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) attacked Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) during a debate for previously serving on Wal-Mart’s board. Then in June, Obama hired a known Wal-Mart defender, Jason Furman, to be his economic policy director despite plenty of criticism from labor unions. The anti-Wal-Mart attack line also seems to have fallen by the wayside as Obama tries to appeal to red-state voters, many of whom consider Wal-Mart to be a part of their everyday lives.

In analyzing Wal-Mart’s contributions, a couple of distinct Democratic groups stand out.

Wal-Mart has a formal relationship with the Congressional Black Caucus, including the Strive for Excellence Scholarship Program and Emerging Leaders internship program, and has a history of hiring high- profile African-American lobbyists.

In 2004, Wal-Mart’s PAC contributed $69,500 to the CBC, its members and its members’ PACs. Two years later, the PAC’s total CBC contributions reached $108,050. This cycle, it’s already reached $100,500, with more money left to be handed out.

The Blue Dogs PAC, its members and their PACs have cashed $203,500 worth of Wal-Mart PAC checks this cycle, exceeding their 2006 total ($185,000) with four months left. Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have received $64,500 in Wal-Mart money this cycle, matching their 2006 take.

In a few cases, it is clear that Wal-Mart values incumbency rather than a political party. For example, in Texas’ 23rd district, Wal-Mart gave then-Rep. Henry Bonilla (R) contributions in 2004 ($7,500) and 2006 ($15,000), but this cycle gave $10,000 to the man who defeated him, Democratic Rep. Ciro Rodriguez.

In Florida’s 22nd district, then-Rep. Clay Shaw (R) received Wal-Mart PAC money in 2004 ($5,000) and 2006 ($10,000), but the company gave $10,000 this cycle to Rep. Ron Klein (D), who defeated Wal-Mart’s candidate in 2006. Similar giving patterns can be seen in Pennsylvania’s 4th district, Indiana’s 2nd, Georgia’s 12th, North Carolina’s 11th and Indiana’s 9th.

In New York’s 24th district, Wal-Mart’s PAC contributed $5,000 for then-Rep. Sherwood Boehlert’s 2004 re-election and $10,000 to Ray Meier, the Republican who ran unsuccessfully to replace him in 2006. But this cycle, Wal-Mart has maxed out ($10,000) to Rep. Michael Arcuri (D), whom it once opposed.

Wal-Mart’s Senate spending is traditionally smaller, and very Republican. Since 1998, Wal-Mart has contributed at least 69 percent of its Senate money to Republicans. That trend continues this cycle with Republicans receiving 83 percent of the PAC’s Senate candidate contributions through June 30. But even still, more than a third of the current Democratic Senators have taken money from Wal-Mart over the last three cycles.

Similar to the House races, Wal-Mart appeared to be hedging its bets in a few states. In 2004, Wal-Mart contributed $6,000 to then-incumbent Sen. Tom Daschle (D) and $4,500 to former Rep. John Thune (R) in their South Dakota battle. Wal-Mart also contributed to both the Republican and Democratic Senate candidates in Colorado, Georgia and Louisiana that cycle. In the Tennessee open seat race in 2006, Wal-Mart gave $10,000 each to Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D) and former Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker (R).

Wal-Mart is still a Republican company at the grass roots. When contributions from individual employees and their families are added to the PAC contributions, Wal-Mart’s total giving this cycle shifts to about 56 percent Republican, according to CRP. Less than 1 percent of the contributions to Wal-Mart’s PAC comes from donations over $200. In comparison, 4.5 percent of Target’s PAC (Target Citizens Political Forum) money and 74 percent of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. PAC receipts come from donations over $200.

Wal-Mart has also consistently given to all three Republican campaign committees over the last three cycles, including $30,000 each to the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, as well as $15,000 to the Republican National Committee.

In 2004, Wal-Mart gave $30,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. It has never contributed to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, but it did give $2,500 last cycle to then-DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel’s (Ill.) PAC.

“We look forward to working with the committees — both parties, both houses — and we will continue to work with elected officials, regardless of party affiliation, to bring about solutions for all Americans,” Wal-Mart’s Anderson said.

This story first appeared in Roll Call on August 4, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Will Third-Party Candidates Make the Difference in Top Races?

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Every cycle there is buzz about third-party candidates drawing votes from one candidate and throwing the election to another. This cycle is no different. But not all third-party candidacies are equal.

In Ohio’s 15th district, state Sen. Steve Stivers (R) and Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy (D) are battling for the open seat vacated by Rep. Deborah Pryce (R). Retired state legislative and budget analyst Don Elijah Eckhart is running as an Independent, and is attracting some attention after the Ohio Right to Life endorsed his candidacy.

The situation isn’t a complete surprise, since Eckhart ran for the state Senate four years ago as an Independent against Stivers. Eckhart received the Ohio Right to Life nod in that race too and received 14,509 votes (9 percent), while Stivers cruised to re-election, 58 percent to 34 percent.

Eckhart may draw a few percentage points in GOP-heavy Union and Madison counties, but they comprise only 13 percent of the 15th Congressional district, which is dominated by Franklin County.

“Don knows that big money leads to favoritism and corruption,” according to his Web site. “He is self-funding this campaign to set an example.” On June 30, Eckhart had $370 on hand, after giving his campaign $5,228.40 and raising a couple of hundred dollars from individuals.

Eckhart is “reaching out to Christian voters via ads on Christian radio,” according to a story in Tuesday’s Columbus Dispatch, and “making contact” with 12 churches in Union County. According to his Federal Election Commission filing, Eckhart spent a little more than $2,000 on radio ads through June 30, with the much of the rest of the money going for the Web site and parade candy.

If the margin in this district is 1,062 votes again, as it was in 2006 when Pryce edged Kilroy, then Eckhart could make a difference. But don’t expect him to make a big splash.

In New Jersey, Democrats believe Bridgewater Councilman Michael Hsing’s Independent candidacy will aid state Assemblywoman Linda Stender’s (D) effort in GOP Rep. Mike Ferguson’s open 7th district.

Stender lost narrowly to Ferguson in 2006 and faces state Sen. Leonard Lance (R). Lance survived a crowded and competitive primary on June 3 and finished with only $81,000 in the bank on June 30 after spending more than $400,000. While Lance regrouped, Stender was sitting on $1.2 million and is already airing television ads.

Hsing had $92,000 in the bank on June 30. The registered Republican, who was born and raised in Taiwan, told the local media that he raised most of his $114,000 from the minority community outside the district. He’s only spent $22,000 thus far, since he dropped out of the Republican race early on, claiming that the system was “rigged.”

Again, if the race is extremely close, anything or anyone can be the difference maker. But there is little evidence that Hsing has strong ties within the Republican Party or will have the money to raise his profile in a very expensive Congressional district.

In Michigan’s 9th district, Jack Kevorkian is running as an Independent. Known as “Dr. Death,” Kevorkian announced his candidacy in March and recently filed enough valid signatures to be on the November ballot.

The 80-year-old physician was released from prison in June 2007 after serving eight years for second-degree murder for helping a man die in 1998. Kevorkian is also terminally ill with Hepatitis C.

Kevorkian hasn’t filed with the FEC, meaning he hasn’t raised or spent more than $5,000, but he could still be a factor in the race. According to private polling from the middle of June, Kevorkian is very well known and unpopular, but drawing a significant percentage of the vote.

He’s also drawing a disproportionate number of Democrats, hurting former state Lottery Commissioner Gary Peters’ (D) effort to oust Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R). On July 16, the Congressman showed almost $1.9 million on hand to almost $1.1 million for Peters.

Democrat Michael Jackson’s Independent candidacy in Louisiana’s 6th district could have the greatest electoral impact. The African-American state Representative drew 27 percent against fellow state Rep. Don Cazayoux (and three other Democrats) in the March 8 special primary and 43 percent against Cazayoux in the April 5 runoff.

Cazayoux went on to win the special general election, but his narrow 49 percent to 46 percent margin over a flawed Republican candidate shows that the new Congressman doesn’t have much room for error in a district that is approximately one-third black. Cazayoux faces a more credible Republican challenger this fall.

Even though Jackson is not expected to raise much money, he clearly has an electoral base in the district and could make the difference in the race.


This item first appeared on RollCall.com on July 30, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

DCCC Money Could Tip the Balance in Races at the Wire

By Stuart Rothenberg

With House Republicans still reeling over the party’s brand problems, President Bush’s unpopularity and the Democrats’ advantage on every domestic issue, money remains a major headache for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

At the end of June, the NRCC had $8.4 million in the bank, compared with $56.6 million for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The NRCC has trailed the DCCC in fundraising this cycle — taking in $80.3 million to the DCCC’s $109 million — but also has spent far more money than the Democratic committee: $72 million for the NRCC to $55 million for the DCCC.

Critics of the Republicans say that the NRCC spent far too much money early in the cycle on phone-bank fundraising, which the campaign committee relied on during good times but which has failed to bring in money after the 2006 elections. In addition, the NRCC outspent the DCCC in special elections this cycle, had unusual auditing expenses and had a larger debt to eliminate.

In any case, the NRCC’s current disadvantage is far worse than it was two years ago. At the end of June 2006, the DCCC had a small $5.5 million advantage — $32 million on hand for the DCCC to $26.5 million for the NRCC. This June, the DCCC’s advantage is more than $42 million.

And the DCCC’s advantage is likely to grow as this cycle progresses.

Last cycle, from July 1 to Oct. 18 (the Federal Election Commission’s pre-general-election report), the NRCC raised $46.57 million, about $15 million more than the DCCC raised over that time. This cycle, with Democrats headed for another good election and certain to make considerable gains to their House majority, it’s likely that the DCCC will reverse those numbers, outraising the NRCC between now and mid-October.

As a result of the DCCC’s financial advantage, Democratic strategists will have plenty of options after Labor Day about where to spend money.

Two years ago this week, in this newspaper, staff writer Lauren W. Whittington wrote that the DCCC had reserved TV time “in markets covering as many as two dozen targeted districts at an estimated cost of $30 million.” This cycle, the DCCC has already reserved $53 million in air time in 51 Congressional districts, a significant increase over two years ago.

But that’s just the first two rounds of the DCCC’s media buy. Additional spending on races is likely.

Republican insiders expect that the NRCC will have something in the order of $28 million or $29 million to spend in races, which includes the committee going into debt to the tune of about $8 million. That would be a manageable debt for House Republicans, who came out of the 2006 election with a debt exceeding $18 million.

Two years ago, the NRCC spent more than $35 million on its top 12 races (and a stunning $21.1 million on its top half-dozen contests), a level of spending that Republicans are not likely to reach for all races this time.

House Democrats have been saying that their campaign committee spent about $70 million in 47 races last cycle. It is difficult to believe that the DCCC won’t be able to exceed that figure this time, especially since the committee had much more money in the bank on June 30 this year than it did two years ago.

Democratic operatives repeatedly warn that they expect “outside” groups (that is, 527s) to supplement the NRCC’s spending, offsetting some of the advantage that the DCCC now holds over the NRCC.

While strategists at Freedom’s Watch, one of the groups expected to spend money to help elect House Republicans, modestly warn that the group hasn’t yet raised the money to be a factor, it seems likely that some substantial nonparty committee spending will supplement the NRCC’s spending, though not to the extent that it would erase the DCCC’s advantage.

But DCCC spending will also be supplemented by party allies. For example, the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund is already advertising against Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.).

The DCCC’s big financial advantage could well turn out to be a difference-maker in at least a handful of Congressional races, maybe more. Party strategists can afford to invest in some second- and even third-tier contests to see whether they might steal one from the GOP, while the NRCC will have to be smarter in making their more limited resources go further.

Still, both party committees will have interesting decisions to make. How many races will the NRCC play in? And will the DCCC be a major player in expensive media markets, including Chicago and New York, or try to make a difference in more difficult, but less expensive, races in places such as Idaho and Wyoming?

Probably the biggest decision of all is likely to rest with the DCCC. Given the party’s opportunities and the unusually favorable atmospherics, will the committee roll the dice and go heavily into debt, even beyond the $11 million it is expected to, in order to go for the GOP’s jugular?


This column first appeared in Roll Call on July 31, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.